Letters To The Editor

November 04, 1997

CARLTON `GREAT ASSET'

Your Oct. 17 editorial is offensive to the citizens of King and Queen County. Edward Hall, a member of the King and Queen Board of Supervisors, states that what happened in New Kent County to Louise Carlton did not affect her reputation and standing in King and Queen. She has proven to us that her character and reputation are above reproach.

The superintendent of New Kent County schools singled out Carlton because of a long-running feud with her that is general knowledge to everyone. He built a case that in the end came to a little bit of nothing. She entered the Alford Plea simply because she has no money to fight further, unlike the New Kent superintendent and School Board, which have unlimited taxpayer dollars.

We in King and Queen - the School Board, the Board of Supervisors and citizens - have a very high regard for Carlton and believe her innocent of any wrongdoing. She has proven herself a great asset to the School Board and the county. We see no need for her to consider resigning. She is truly committed to all young people.

Aaron P. Johnson

Shacklefords

A FORK CONTROL PLAN

I was surprised that there wasn't a response in your paper from Jim Spencer or one of your other columnists concerning the Portsmouth man who killed another man with a barbecue fork Oct. 13. I expected at least an editorial on the evils of barbecue forks. I was certain someone would lay out a public agenda that demanded:

* Registration of all barbecue forks.

* A five-day waiting period before purchasing a barbecue fork.

* A federal law requiring point locks be sold with each new barbecue fork.

* A purchasing limit of one barbecue fork per month.

* Mandatory licensing and training of barbecue fork owners.

* A special licensing requirement to carry a concealed barbecue fork.

* A police background check of anyone attempting to purchase a barbecue fork.

* No purchasing of barbecue forks by convicted felons.

All of these actions are surely justified if we are to protect innocent citizens of this city, state and nation from the inherent dangers of cheap barbecue forks.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the man who died. The problem lies with the man behind the weapon. The death is not the fault of the barbecue fork.

Dan Raymond

Hampton

PORNOGRAPHY HARMFUL

How hypocritical of the editorial staff at the Daily Press to support the jury verdict in the Newport News video store obscenity case. Several issues need to be addressed from your Oct. 23 editorial.

Pornography in any form results in increased crime and violence. It is the instigator in sexual assault, rape and child molestation. No amount of precaution will prevent pornography from finding its way to the hands of children and teens. The viewers of this material are exposed to violence, not the loving relationship of the marriage covenant.

The First Amendment is designed to protect political speech and ideas, not obscenity. It does not give people the right to do, in the privacy of their homes, whatever they want. What is viewed or read in the home will directly affect the community. Many in our community are addicted to pornography. Many were probably hooked as children at home or a neighbor's home.

The hypocrisy is that liberals are concerned with the effects of tobacco, child care, education and sex offenders, yet, they are indifferent to the plague of pornography. A nation that tolerates this hypocrisy will soon accept child molestation and other perversions just as easily as it accepts pornography, homosexuality and the murder of the unborn.

David C. Kessel

Hampton

MILITARY HAMPERED

Reference your Oct. 26 editorial supporting the Lautenberg Amendment:

This law prevents policemen and soldiers from handling firearms if they have ever been convicted of certain misdemeanors. You supported your argument with two questionable statements. First, you say ``Military work includes numerous functions - administration, public affairs, maintenance, transportation - for which guns are not necessary.'' Almost every soldier that deploys to a combat zone is issued a weapon, even those in ``administrative'' jobs. Those pushing such social engineering in today's military tend to forget that the military's purpose is to fight and win wars, so that's how they are equipped and trained.

Second, you wrote ``The law also does not affect the eligibility of personnel to work with a variety of major weapons systems such as tanks.'' Every soldier on the crew of a tank is issued and wears a 9mm semiautomatic handgun for personal protection when off the tank. There is also an M16 assault rifle on every tank that all crew members have access to. Are you suggesting we cannot trust the young sergeant with a pistol in combat, yet put him behind the triggers of the tank's 120mm smoothbore cannon?

This will also make it easy to avoid hazardous duty. When the next bloody war starts, and it will, a soldier need only have his wife call the MPs and claim a shove, or push. A misdemeanor conviction is little to pay to avoid combat.

One would think the editors of a newspaper in an area so saturated with the military would know a little more about them, or at least not write such an editorial until they did.